• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Assassin's Creed Unity - PC Performance thread

Qassim

Member
Jul 6, 2012
6,854
2
590
United Kingdom
qassim.uk
Isn't that literally the point of a PC?

No - I'd still prefer the PC even if it wasn't possible to exceed the console performance and graphics.

Rainbow's six scope is MUCH smaller. If this shit happens with that game I will personally sit outside Ubisoft headquarters with a sign demanding they scrap anvil.

There's also the point that it was designed to run at 60fps on the consoles, so that'll have a knock-on effect on the PC port.
 

Schlomo

Member
Dec 5, 2008
1,492
1
865
That's probably just a Minecraft easter egg :p




Hahahahha, unfuckingbelievable.

Isn't that just a post mill?
Or are we talking about the textures?
 

Alej

Banned
Sep 18, 2009
1,687
0
0
34
Nancy, France
I would challenge the notion that it's "unplayable" on well specced PCs. And I'm not even talking about high-end systems.

Just take a look around. Console performance does not seem that bad, PC performance is very good as long as you don't have quixotic expecations about your hardware.

15fps is bad. I've experienced Dragon's Dogma or Skyrim (after patches) on PS3, that was nowhere near that bad. It's a flawed product if true.
 

Kinthalis

Banned
Jun 13, 2013
4,750
0
0
USA
If you're going to run with crappy settings why would you not just buy the game on a console at that point?

Because less than max does not equal "Crappy" settings.

Because less than max on PC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS4 settings?

Because on PC I've got options I don't have on a console?

Because 1080p/1440p >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 900p?
 

Felix Lighter

Member
Oct 2, 2007
20,750
1
0
If you're going to run with crappy settings why would you not just buy the game on a console at that point?

So your stance is, If you can't run on Ultra, regardless of what effects are being pushed or AA methods being used, you might as well play at 900p sub 30 fps on medium detail?
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
375
France
15fps is bad. I've experienced Dragon's Dogma or Skyrim (after patches) on PS3, that was nowhere near that bad. It's a flawed product if true.
It's not 15fps average. Framerate is bound to drop at some point, look at what the game is pushing in terms of geometry and AI. I know my framerate will fluctuate wildly on my PC (4770K/GTX 780) and I'm not upset in the least.
Should they have scaled those back a little ? Yes, but the performance on any platform can easily be explained.

Contrary to the narrative some are pushing Ubisoft are not amateurs who have discovered real-time rendering last week. You would have a point if there was another open world game nearly as impressive scope wise who runs better than Unity.
 

Valnen

Member
Aug 4, 2009
20,974
0
0
35
Citrus Heights
It's not 15fps average. Framerate is bound to drop at some point, look at what the game is pushing in terms of geometry and AI. I know my framerate will fluctuate wildly on my PC (4770K/GTX 780) and I'm not upset in the least.
Should they have scaled those back a little ? Yes, but the performance on any platform can easily be explained.

Contrary to the narrative some are pushing Ubisoft are not amateurs who have discovered real-time rendering last week. You would have a point if there was another open world game nearly as impressive scope wise who runs better than Unity.
Frame rates should never go that low. 15 FPS is unpayable. That's basically a slideshow.
 

Alej

Banned
Sep 18, 2009
1,687
0
0
34
Nancy, France
Because less than max does not equal "Crappy" settings.

Because less than max on PC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS4 settings?

Because on PC I've got options I don't have on a console?

Because 1080p/1440p >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 900p?

So are we talking about how much better PCs are, here? Really?
This isn't the problem we should talk about.

People who spend 50% or even 100% more on a PC than on a console should expect more than some upper res and less framedrops (coming from higher framerate).

And then, at max settings it indeed looks like shit. This is a flawed argument.

It's not 15fps average. Framerate is bound to drop at some point, look at what the game is pushing in terms of geometry and AI. I know my framerate will fluctuate wildly on my PC (4770K/GTX 780) and I'm not upset in the least.
Should they have scaled those back a little ? Yes, but the performance on any platform can easily be explained.

Contrary to the narrative some are pushing Ubisoft are not amateurs who have discovered real-time rendering last week. You would have a point if there was another open world game nearly as impressive scope wise who runs better than Unity.

I would take stable 30fps (and even more stable 25fps) before 60fps with a lot of drops, any day.
Heavy framedrops are unplayable territory.
 

Felix Lighter

Member
Oct 2, 2007
20,750
1
0
It's not 15fps average. Framerate is bound to drop at some point, look at what the game is pushing in terms of geometry and AI.
Should they have scaled those back a little ? Yes, but the performance on any platform can easily be explained.

Contrary to the narrative some are pushing Ubisoft are not amateurs who have discovered real-time rendering last week. You would have a point if there was another open world game nearly as impressive scope wise who runs better than Unity.

It's pretty apparent that they overreached here, you can see by the images that they are very aggressive compromising with LOD and it is still a performance dog. They may have talented teams at Ubisoft but something went wrong here. Whether they didn't have the time to get what they wanted out of it or they were just too optimistic early in development and started scaling back too late in the game, it's performance across platforms is awful and the compromises they did incorporate end up making it all not seem worth it to begin with.
 
Dec 12, 2010
2,140
0
650
steamcommunity.com
Performance report after playing the intro. Still waiting for the resto of the game to download and install fully. My specs are as follows:

i74790k @ 4,2GHz about 30% load when playing
12GB ram
MSI GTX 970 @1310 MHz is 100% load when playing

With ingame settings on "very high" and 2xMSAA and at 1080p i got 50-60 fps. I have yet to see performance outside with a lot of people on screen.

Updating after running around a bit outside. I get around 50-60fps mostly with some drops to 45 here and there. It runs good. The pop in is noticeable though.
 
Dec 4, 2010
17,050
1
620
AZ
So are we talking about how much better PCs are, here? Really?
This isn't the problem we should talk about.

People who spend 50% or even 100% more on a PC than on a console should expect more than some upper res and less framedrops (coming from higher framerate).

I think you are wrong. And they do get more than just upper res and less framedrops.

100% more isn't that much for a gaming pc.
 

Corpsepyre

Member
Oct 3, 2013
8,963
434
845
Lahore, Pakistan
Wow. I was thinking of picking this up, but not at 20fps, not until it's a fiver and/or it's 2016 and I've replaced my GPU.

Get the new AMD drivers.

If it stays at that FPS, then this has to be the worst port in quite some time.

Also, turn off contact hardening shadows and tessellation. Helped a lot in Black Flag.
 

Valnen

Member
Aug 4, 2009
20,974
0
0
35
Citrus Heights
I highly value framerate (as any PC gamer) but 15fps during a brief moment is nothing to riot over, on consoles that is.

I would not accept that on PC obviously.
On any platform that's unacceptable for any amount of time, consoles included. The developer straight up isn't doing their job at that point.

It's very clear Ubisoft failed to get this product performing to acceptable standards on any platform, PC hardware included.
 

jimbosimbo43

Neo Member
Nov 24, 2011
47
0
0
Updating after running around a bit outside. I get around 50-60fps mostly with some drops to 45 here and there. It runs good. The pop in is noticeable though.

Bodes well for me, we have a very similar setup (Same GPU and CPU)

Have you tried ultra? IF so what your avg FPS?
 

Skyzard

Banned
Jun 3, 2012
20,772
0
0
As far as i know R6 i using different engine. Anvil is made for TP and Open World games, R6 is smaller and it relies on destruction that is not present in Anvil.

Yeap it uses Realblast Engine

http://www.polygon.com/e3-2014/2014...six-siege-ubisoft-e3-2014-multiplayer-trailer

Okay good, thanks.

In a press release, Ubisoft said the studio is using a proprietary engine called Realblast that enables the real-time, unscripted destructibility that you see in the game's environments.

Good good.
 

TimFL

Member
Nov 3, 2013
2,061
508
685
Germany
How ****ed am I on a scale of 1 to 10:

i7 920 (2,67ghz clock)
Sapphire Radeon HD7950 3gig Vapor-X OC Edition
6gig RAM

I really want to play this game this week and not wait until I finally get around to ordering my new PC later this year/early next year.
 

Skyzard

Banned
Jun 3, 2012
20,772
0
0
How ****ed am I on a scale of 1 to 10:

i7 920 (2,67ghz clock)
Sapphire Radeon HD7950 3gig Vapor-X OC Edition
6gig RAM

I really want to play this game this week and not wait until I finally get around to ordering my new PC later this year/early next year.

sweetfx for aa
360p
go wild with the settings they don't make much difference, just need to turn off shadows

Who knows man.

Are the reviews coming out while we can cancel the preorders?
 

jimbosimbo43

Neo Member
Nov 24, 2011
47
0
0
How ****ed am I on a scale of 1 to 10:

i7 920 (2,67ghz clock)
Sapphire Radeon HD7950 3gig Vapor-X OC Edition
6gig RAM

I really want to play this game this week and not wait until I finally get around to ordering my new PC later this year/early next year.

Processor and RAM probably holding you back. The Graphics card can play most stuff at high/ultra .. apart from some more recent games (owned one myself). But this game sounds unusually harsh on even the best specced PC ... id say it will be playable buy not to a great quality
 

Windom Earle

Member
Jan 4, 2009
11,562
504
1,215
It's pretty apparent that they overreached here, you can see by the images that they are very aggressive compromising with LOD and it is still a performance dog. They may have talented teams at Ubisoft but something went wrong here. Whether they didn't have the time to get what they wanted out of it or they were just too optimistic early in development and started scaling back too late in the game, it's performance across platforms is awful and the compromises they did incorporate end up making it all not seem worth it to begin with.

"Look, we have consoles with super weak CPUs... Let's push for thousands of NPCs then!"

This seems accurate with Ubisoft seemingly not understanding the meaning of CPU limited (Judging by some their parity damage control).
 

neilka

Member
Nov 19, 2006
46
0
0
Does it work unlocking via VPN like with Steam?
Everything I've read suggests that VPNs don't work this time because the US and EU versions are different products as far as Uplay is concerned, so it still shows the same release date with or without a VPN :(
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
375
France
People who spend 50% or even 100% more on a PC than on a console should expect more than some upper res and less framedrops (coming from higher framerate).
There is no (never was) strict, scientific correlation between money spent and the result on your screen performance/IQ wise. Some pieces of hardware are priced as high as the market is willing to pay, regardless of how they stack up against others or their inherent level of performance.

And then, at max settings it indeed looks like shit. This is a flawed argument.
The game has its flaws, LOD seems pretty bad, pop-in rears its ugly head even using maximum PC LOD but on the other hand lighting and character models are gorgeous. Textures (even at high) are detailed enough.
Perhaps you need to realize a game architectured around consoles will inevitably hit a wall in terms of how much you can render on screen. But who knows, perhaps the next AC will be a tremendous leap over Unity in both rendering tech and scale.

I would take stable 30fps (and even more stable 25fps) before 60fps with a lot of drops, any day.
Heavy framedrops are unplayable territory.
It's great to have standards but history has shown developpers are a bit casuals with framerate drops and don't forget that the main target for consoles are tech illiterate people who could not give a damn about resolution or framerate. Only a tiny core of tech enthusiasts care about that stuff on consoles. Therefore they see framerate as a necessary casualty, do you think your average joe will complain a drop to 15-20fps ? No, he most likely won't even notice. If you genuinely can't stand framerate drops there are dark days ahead for you.
Plenty of console games running at what I would call barely playable framerates sold very well, the market does not care for framerate or resolution.

It's pretty apparent that they overreached here, you can see by the images that they are very aggressive compromising with LOD and it is still a performance dog. They may have talented teams at Ubisoft but something went wrong here, whether they didn't have the time to get what they wanted out of it or they were just too optimistic early in development and started scaling back to late in the game.
I agree with that, completely. But it's not due to a lack of technical skill, the hardware underneath (consoles or any PC) has its limits and it's not hard to hit them.
You also have to factor in the inherent difficulties of multithreading are made even harder on PC.

On any platform that's unacceptable for any amount of time, consoles included. The developer straight up isn't doing their job at that point.
I would not go that far. I think the hardware just can't handle it and they should have scaled crowds back.
 

Skyzard

Banned
Jun 3, 2012
20,772
0
0
"Look, we have consoles with super weak CPUs... Let's push for thousands of NPCs then!"

This seems accurate with Ubisoft seemingly not understanding the meaning of CPU limited (Judging by some their parity damage control).

The number of NPCs are pretty cool though. It does add immersion.

I know what you guys are saying but they do add a lot imo, even if it makes it harder to go through. Shame they popin and out of dimensions randomly though.

Game doesn't seem to be really CPU limited anyway (brain dead AI ;0) ).

They should just keep all of the AI at a medium setting textures/models and remove the high quality models for crowds if they haven't already. Tone em down some more. Dial back the number of AI by like 15%.
 

TimFL

Member
Nov 3, 2013
2,061
508
685
Germany
sweetfx for aa
360p
go wild with the settings they don't make much difference, just need to turn off shadows

Who knows man.

Are the reviews coming out while we can cancel the preorders?

I hope it goes to 480p with no AA. Thanks anyways.

Processor and RAM probably holding you back. The Graphics card can play most stuff at high/ultra .. apart from some more recent games (owned one myself). But this game sounds unusually harsh on even the best specced PC ... id say it will be playable buy not to a great quality

Thought so. Maybe I order parts of my new PC this week and use the HD7950 until the GTX980 8gig comes out.
Thanks for the reply.


Should've bought this on PS4 and play it in forever alone mode instead of playing this at 360p with friends on PC... :/
 
Mar 2, 2011
2,311
0
0
Ontario
How ****ed am I on a scale of 1 to 10:

i7 920 (2,67ghz clock)
Sapphire Radeon HD7950 3gig Vapor-X OC Edition
6gig RAM

I really want to play this game this week and not wait until I finally get around to ordering my new PC later this year/early next year.
Change the 7950 to a 7970 and I've got the same PC as you.

My game will be finished installing in a few minutes so I'll let you know how it goes.
 
Dec 12, 2010
2,140
0
650
steamcommunity.com
Bodes well for me, we have a very similar setup (Same GPU and CPU)

Have you tried ultra? IF so what your avg FPS?

Ultra High preset is about the same, a bit lower avg but after lowering AA to 2xMSAA it hovers a bit above 50fps. EDIT: Played some more, seems to be around 40-50 more like it. Wíth TXAA it sits around 40.

Everything I've read suggests that VPNs don't work this time because the US and EU versions are different products as far as Uplay is concerned, so it still shows the same release date with or without a VPN :(

It seems I didn't have to do bother with it. Since I bought it from Nuuvem it activated today and I'm playing right now, no problems.
 
Mar 2, 2011
2,311
0
0
Ontario
Wow, Origin is ridiculous.

I downloaded 40GB of data and then had to install an additional 40GB of data, so the game effectively takes up twice as much space as it should.
 

Skyzard

Banned
Jun 3, 2012
20,772
0
0
Wow, Origin is ridiculous.

I downloaded 40GB of data and then had to install an additional 40GB of data, so the game effectively takes up twice as much space as it should.

Origin you say?

Time to crack open the VPNs.

-Hmm nothing for me, did you mean Uplay?

Or what country are you in?
 
Mar 2, 2011
2,311
0
0
Ontario
Eagerly awaiting your report. You might want to install the beta driver before playing it?
I've got it downloaded, but not installed, and I'm going to try it both ways.

Origin you say?

Time to crack open the VPNs.

I bought it from Origin Canada, not India.

I initially did the India thing, but I cancelled and switched to Canada for fear that my CC company would see it as a suspicious transaction and put a hold on my card, which they have a habit of doing.
 

Kevyt

Member
Oct 27, 2012
9,581
1
390
this games runs like crap on a r9 270x :(


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gqsztV3gE


i'm so disappointing. note its not me playing

I just tried the game on my Sapphire R9 270.

I had to set environment detail to medium, shadows to low, no SSAO, FXAA for AA, and turn off bloom, V-sync off. I was getting 30-40 fps in the very first sequence. The game isn't that bad. It still looks better than on consoles. I was also using a controller so the lag didn't feel as bad as when playing with mouse + keyboard. Overall, it's not bad, I can't wait to get to Paris.

Oh and this is without beta drivers. I'll install those and see if my performance improves.
 

Skyzard

Banned
Jun 3, 2012
20,772
0
0
I've got it downloaded, but not installed, and I'm going to try it both ways.



I bought it from Origin Canada, not India.

I initially did the India thing, but I cancelled and switched to Canada for fear that my CC company would see it as a suspicious transaction and put a hold on my card, which they have a habit of doing.

Ah it depends on where you bought it... hmm seems to change for me depending on what region im connecting from, but maybe that's just the thing that says stuff :)P).

Let me try Canada, thanks.

-still no luck. 2 and half hours left till midnight in India... if they are doing a midnight release.
 

bro1

Banned
Oct 17, 2008
3,471
0
0
I'm done! I'm out! I spent thousands of dollars building my PC and every Ubi game in recent memory is compromised in some way. I'm willing to play at 1080P, I'm willing to play at 30 fps even, but can I just get it to run at a consistant 30fps without a hitch or a drop? I shouldn't have to invest in G-Synch to get a smooth 30fps with GTX 780 ti in SLI and a 4690K at 4.2ghz. I mean, the FPS says 30 on the screen but the stutters and hitchtes are awful
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
375
France
I'm done! I'm out! I spent thousands of dollars building my PC and every Ubi game in recent memory is compromised in some way. I'm willing to play at 1080P, I'm willing to play at 30 fps even, but can I just get it to run at a consistant 30fps without a hitch or a drop? I shouldn't have to invest in G-Synch to get a smooth 30fps with GTX 780 ti in SLI and a 4690K at 4.2ghz. I mean, the FPS says 30 on the screen but the stutters and hitchtes are awful

You don't have enough VRAM for ultra high textures and MSAA.
 
Mar 2, 2011
2,311
0
0
Ontario
I'm done! I'm out! I spent thousands of dollars building my PC and every Ubi game in recent memory is compromised in some way. I'm willing to play at 1080P, I'm willing to play at 30 fps even, but can I just get it to run at a consistant 30fps without a hitch or a drop? I shouldn't have to invest in G-Synch to get a smooth 30fps with GTX 780 ti in SLI and a 4690K at 4.2ghz. I mean, the FPS says 30 on the screen but the stutters and hitchtes are awful
VRAM wall?
 

CyanideFuse

Member
Jul 16, 2012
2,170
0
425
UK
I don't know what to do with my nVidia code. I have minus interest in FC4 and The Crew so that leaves AC: Unity.

I am fairly masochistic when it comes to games so should I just redeem it...

...Decisions, decisions.
 

Skyzard

Banned
Jun 3, 2012
20,772
0
0
I'm done! I'm out! I spent thousands of dollars building my PC and every Ubi game in recent memory is compromised in some way. I'm willing to play at 1080P, I'm willing to play at 30 fps even, but can I just get it to run at a consistant 30fps without a hitch or a drop? I shouldn't have to invest in G-Synch to get a smooth 30fps with GTX 780 ti in SLI and a 4690K at 4.2ghz. I mean, the FPS says 30 on the screen but the stutters and hitchtes are awful

So I'm thinking I should just go ahead and cancel this? Being on a lowly 780 ti.

Were you trying TXAA and ultra textures? Cause your rig sucks too much for that.
 

AstuteClass

Banned
Nov 1, 2013
701
0
0
So I'm thinking I should just go ahead and cancel this? Being on a lowly 780 ti.

Were you trying TXAA and ultra textures?

I'm definitely holding off with my lowly 780Ti 4770k machine.

God damn, I thought my PC was expensive back in June and was assured by the PC gamer crowd that the needing to upgrade every year is BS. I thought I would get at least high settings with stable 1080p30 for 2 years on all games.

And I'm not even considering the console version because that's apparently trash.